An Honest Inquiry
I'm in a quandary, as I admit that I was very young at the time, but my honest question is thus: Are all "Reagan Democrats" equivalent to Archie Bunker? And if so, weren't these voters lost to BO from the get-go? If so, is there a way for BO to win without these votes? If not, what does that mean for the Dems chances in the GE given that the latest polls show that 55% of Dems believe that it would be unfair for HRC to become the nominee should BO be leading in delegates and popular vote (an increasingly likely scenario given the news out of FL and MI this week) and that 20% of Dems would not vote for HRC, regardless? I'm feeling a little verklempt, discuss....
Advertisement
Polls show him doing very well in most states, and dont forget turnout, with Obama turnout will be very high. That and dont forget McCain messes up very often. Once the spotlight is on him again when its Obama vs McCain then McCain numbers will go down. We are in a recession and a 5 year war that McCain supports.
March 18, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the term "Reagan Democrats" is a media invented term I'm not sure what it means, other than as referring to those Reagan voters who had historically voted democratic.
However, the political landscape has changed in the last, almost, thirty years. Thus, I think the term is not at all relevant in this election.
Obama is forging a non-traditional democratic coalition, much as Reagan forged a non-traditional republican coalition, by incorporating the "Reagan democrats", unlike the DLC inspired Clinton campaign which relies upon a constituency which hasn't existed since before Reagan's ascendancy.
My advice is to ignore the vacuous media talking hairdos who rely on such cliches.
March 18, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Archie Bunker was a gross caricature of an older Reagan democrat. But one could have been a baby when Reagan was elected and still fit the characteristics and voting patterns of a Reagan democrat. According to the 2000 census 50% of americans have no education beyond high school. I doubt there has been much change in the last 8 years.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf
While this group isn't all Reagan democrats, it includes many AA's and evangelicals, a significant portion of it is.
While undereducated this group is not unintelligent. Their minds simply have not been broaden by ideas out side the narrow confines of their birthplace. They typically work in jobs that are physically demanding, even if not extremely strenous, the work requires standing for hours at assembly lines. The work isn't just physically draining but mind numbing and after completing necessary household chores they have little energy to do any in depth analysis of the candidates.
The part of this group demographers call Reagan democrats were stanch democrats many from union households. They actually began to move away from the party when McGovern, the anti war candidate, was nominated. But they became true swing voters when Carter ran for reelection against Reagan. The swung back to Bill Clinton for 2 years but come the midterm elections they went republican. Bill worked hard to get them back, succeeded and was reelected. In 2000 enough of them swung back to Bush.
These are the people who will decide this election. The choice is stark enough that most subgroups will go to a certain party. Liberals and progressives will go democratic. Most minorities, especially the AA, will overwhelmingly vote democratic. Evangelicals, corporate executives and the rich will vote republican mostly. This group of working class whites could swing either way. its the largest subgroup that isn't pretty solidly party affiliated.
March 18, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink